R v Wease

[1993] QCA 7

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1993] QCA 007

QUEENSLAND	C.A No. 323 of 1992
Before the Court of Appeal

Chief Justice

President

Byrne J.

BETWEEN:

T H E Q U E E N

v.

VERONICA ANNE WEASE

(Applicant)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Delivered the tenth day of February, 1993

M	INUTE OF ORDER:
C	ATCHWORDS:
Counsel:	Mr R. Martin for the Respondent Mr T. Rafter for the Applicant
Solicitors:	Director of Prosecutions for the Respondent Legal Aid Office for the Applicant
Hearing Date:	1st February, 1993

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

QUEENSLAND	C.A No. 323 of 1992
BETWEEN:

T H E Q U E E N

v.

VERONICA ANNE WEASE

(Applicant)

Chief Justice
President
Byrne J.

Judgment of the Court delivered the tenth day of February, 1993

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

QUEENSLAND	C.A No. 323 of 1992
BETWEEN:

T H E Q U E E N

v.

VERONICA ANNE WEASE

(Applicant)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Delivered the tenth day of February, 1993

Veronica Anne Wease has applied for leave to appeal against a sentence of nine years' imprisonment, with a recommendation for parole after three years, imposed in the Trial Division on 10 November 1992 in respect of an offence of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so.

On 5 February 1992, an altercation took place between the applicant and her victim who, according to the applicant, had earlier deliberately broken a beer bottle on the road outside the applicant's house.
Following a heated discussion, the victim returned to his residence. The applicant, who had been drinking, went there and threw a beer bottle through one of the windows and then returned to her house. She was followed by her victim who kicked and then opened the front door. The applicant had a single barrel twelve gauge shotgun which she had loaded and cocked. She was taunted by her victim who called her various names and said "Shoot me. Shoot me.". The applicant then fired the weapon at close range with intent to do grievous bodily harm to her victim, who was struck in the arm and seriously injured.

The sentence imposed is identical with that upheld by the Court of Criminal Appeal in R. v. Ethel Sylvia May Rafter (C.A. No. 162 of 1991, unreported judgment delivered 28 October 1991).

In that case, the applicant was convicted of attempted murder after she had used a shotgun taken from a cupboard in the matrimonial home to shoot her husband in the chest in the course of a domestic dispute. Mr Rafter was fortunate to survive, but was left with serious disabilities of a permanent nature.

be applied in the imposition of sentences. Consistently with
that Act, a sentence of imprisonment should be no greater than
is necessary in the circumstances and parole should be
considered at the earliest appropriate opportunity.
In the circumstances, the sentence imposed was too heavy. A
substantial period of imprisonment is unfortunately necessary to
punish the applicant and to make it clear that the community
does not approve of the sort of conduct in which she was
involved and to discourage her and other persons from committing
such offences.
These objectives will be met by a sentence of imprisonment
for seven years with a recommendation that the applicant be
considered for parole after two years. The Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 sets out principles to allowed. The sentence imposed below should be set aside and in lieu thereof a sentence of imprisonment for seven years with a recommendation for parole after two years substituted.

In Rafter, emphasis was placed by the Court on the presence of an intent to kill while, on the other hand, it was said that the treatment which Mrs Rafter had received from her husband prior to the offence was reflected in the recommendation of parole.
In this matter, although the jury found that the applicant intended to do grievous bodily harm to her victim, it was not satisfied that she intended to kill him. It may be that that was also the view of her victim, who gave evidence concerning what had occurred in terms so favourable to the applicant that he was declared a hostile witness.
Further, while the applicant must be appropriately punished, weight must also be given to her personal circumstances. She was twenty-eight years of age at the time of the offence and had no relevant prior criminal history. She has two children by her former husband, aged twelve and nine and, at the time, the younger lived with the applicant and her de facto husband. There is a four year old child of that relationship with another child expected in April this year. The applicant worked and supported the man with whom she was living and the children living with them.